"The Poker Hall of People who could possibly be the best Players (even if they're hermits or jerks)".
Or maybe maybe ya'll should stop pretending that poker is a sport, and do away with silly shit like the poker hall of fame. In sports, there are tangible accomplishments, statistics, ways to measure and judge who was great and who wasn't. The halls of fame aren't always perfect, but at least there are objective ways to judge. Poker is not like that, unless you want to make it strictly a Tournament poker hall of fame.
Like take someone like Phil Hellmuth. Due to his tournament poker (particularly WSOP) success, he likely deserves to be in the poker hall of fame. If "Fame" is the sole criteria, he may likely be the most famous poker player alive. He's in a god damn hardee's commerical in 2014, long after the poker bubble burst. But, I have no idea what his lifetime tournament ROI is, I would guess it's much lower than people suspect, and I have no idea if he's a lifetime winner in cashgames. I do know that any cash game player I've ever heard of, loves having Phil in their game, so I would suspect he's a lifetime loser, unless he gets to play in a lot of juicy amateur games. (and if so, god bless). There's no way to know how much Phil has actually won at poker. If he's a life time loser in cash games, does he truly belong in the hall of fame? If so, then what are we truly commemorating?
So, who gets in? The players who do the best in tournaments but dump all their money in cash games? The players who play in and beat the toughest games in the world? How do we know they beat them? The players who play in juicy rich fish games, in hollywood and elsewhere? The grinders who have supported their families for decades on the game? The most talented cheaters? What is the real criteria?
Because, to me, there is only one goal of poker. Get the money. Everything else is a bunch of narrative based myth making and self promotion. I have way more respect for grinders who have made their steady living for decades, than I do for tournament pros who live off of being staked because they gambling degenerates. Player X may have more pure talent than Player Y, a better "A" Game than player Y, but if Player X is always broke, then what was the point? But Player X is a tournament player with charisma, so he gets in the hall and know one gives a damn about Player Y.
Is the poker hall of fame about the myth making of the poker savants and ambassadors, or is it about the people who won the most money? Since there's no way to know the latter, then I'd argue that it's the former and in which case, it's a bunch of bullshit